Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that Rick Santorum defended his robocalls urging Democrats in Michigan to vote in today's critical primary, a tactic that has come under withering criticism from rival Mitt Romney as a 'terrible dirty trick' and a 'new low for his campaign.' Santorum says he reached out to Democratic voters, who can vote in the primary, to show that 'we can attract voters we need to win states like Michigan,' and noted that the former Massachusetts governor has wooed Democrats in the past and used Santorum's own words endorsing him in the 2008 race on a robocall of his own. 'I didn't complain about it. I don't complain. You know what, I'm a big guy. I can take it.' Romney crossed party lines himself to vote for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primary over Bill Clinton in order to cause mischief for the general election. 'In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary,' said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent."

Aye! This is neither news for nerds (I'm sure everyone, nerd or otherwise, has already seen the headlines), nor does it matter (a gaggle of politicians posturing over trivialities of the campaign process is about as un-meaningful as it gets). Wake me up when it's time to vote.

Disclaimer: I am not an American. But I do enjoy watching your politics from just across the Canadian border. (Best comedy anywhere.)

What I see from my side of the border, is that the election has already been decided. Obama will win again, and here is why:
Gingrich has been out of the running ever since his desire for an open marriage came out.
Romney, has already started fading into the background.
Paul, who?
Santorum, He will probably win the nomination. But he is a religious nut job! So far out there

While it's true that the presidential election is important: a) it gets covered to death (and more) by the MSM, it's not one of those stories we might miss because it's on some news site we don't peruse often, and b) a story about robo-calling actually has little to do with the presidential election - it barely has anything to do with deciding who will even be a candidate.

If Slashdot doesn't keep me minimally informed on political issues, then how am I going to know how much each candidate hates my freedom? How would I ever have known who was a traitor and who was against SOPA?

Nothing of the Labor leadership stouch last weekend (Ranga retained leadership if you're interested, won $50 in the process), there are coups in Thailand or violence in the Philippine elections (both important US allies in Asia), the violence in the mid east only got peripheral coverage. Never seen a thread on the German parliamentary elections, the UK _might_ get a mention but apart from that, crickets.

Frink: [snpp.com] Why it's the AT-5000 Auto-Dialer. My very first patent.
Aw, would you listen to the gibberish they've got you
saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert
schoolchildren about snow days and such. Well, let's get
you home to Frinky. Hope your wheels still work, bw-hey.

Indeed. There are people reading slashdot from their workplace, and they don't want to be surprised seeing such gross headlines on the front page (!) while their manager might walk in and see a glimpse of this filth! Please!

Unfortunately, politics influences the Internet (for example, see the recent attempts to push ACTA through) and are thus relevant to nerds. This is especially true of the US, due to the power it wields and the likely consequences of losing that power due to mismanagement (China becomes the next hyperpower and unleashes even worse things upon the world, or European Union prevails and enforces its own brand of censorship). Since Slashdot advertises itself as news of nerds, politics are

Romney crossed party lines himself to vote for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primary...Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent.

Romney crossed party lines himself to vote for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primary...Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent.

So he didn't "cross party lines" then, did he?

Let's call it half a party line, as he was registered as neither Republicrat or Democan. Open Primaries are a good thing, unless they are manipulated thus. Even Rush Limbaugh was suggesting GOP voters in Michigan vote for someone, to interfer with the Democratic Primary in 2008 -- I think that's electioneering and illegal, that he did it on radio I'm rather puzzled charges weren't brought.

I would hate to think if voting in an opposing party's primary were a federal offense. As a liberal in a deeply red state, I know that the only vote I have is my vote in the GOP primary. They will vote "Not Obama", and the electoral college system assures that "Not Obama" will get my share of my state's votes. I should have some say in who "Not Obama" is.

The only difference between what I'm doing and what Santorum is encouraging is that I am voting for the guy who I would want to see in office, if Obama loses. To me, it's important, but I understand that most people wouldn't care about that distinction.

Actually party primaries are a bad idea IMO. If we had a real ballot that allowed us to rank multiple candidates, then each party could have multiple candidates, and we should have open primaries to allow all voters a chance to promote all candidates. Let the top 20 candidates through the primary process, then let everybody rank who they like based on their preferences. I think this would significantly improve voter turnout since more people would have their preferred candidate in the race until the end.

"Hi there Democrat voter, have you ever thought that you might like Santorum? A lot of people who at first found the idea repulsive were glad they tried playing on the other team and haven't gone back. I'm here to convince you that what would make America great, is a big heaping helping of Santorum."

Thats what makes it a crazy story. Oldest trick in the book that "the other side" always votes for the most unelectable guy to make certain they can win against him. You have to be a total political noob to try this stunt of asking for D votes before the nomination, whoever the D vote for is who they think O will be able to easily beat. Which everyone knows is Santorum anyway. Thats why everyone who pays attention to this thought the Santorum (the guy, not the bodily fluid) robocalls were a "dirty trick" by Romney's guys to make Santorum look bad (well, he does a pretty good job all by himself, I mean help him look worse). Then Santorum is dumb enough to admit to doing the robocalls himself. That dude is doomed to never get the nomination after this little scuffle. If he wasn't a complete idiot he'd blame Romney for the robocalls to democrats in support of himself. Indications of a martyr complex?

1. Find something that no one likes, like cross burning or robo calls.2. Spend money to frame competition for doing it.3. Profit! Or at least donations to you instead of competition, unless your stupid enough to admit you did it.

I will say that the only thing worse that this would be getting caught and outed by your opponent. The only intelligent explanation is Santorum tried to frame Romney by paying for robo calls to democrats in support of himself, but Romney caught him and got the goods on him, "and for the greater good of the R party" the chiefs (big donors, etc) convinced Santorum to fall on his sword instead of getting totally destroyed by Romney outing him. Santorum will probably get a minor position in "reward" for falling on his sword. Not too high up, getting caught being a crook is rough on the reputation...

This is just part of the Republican Party's unconscious effort to self-destruct. Ever since the Tea-Bag/Libertarian crowd became the moving force in the party, supplanting the Chamber of Commerce types who were in charge for most of the 20th century, it's been infected with a kind of political rabies. Not only are they lashing out with no rhyme or reason, it's affected the Theocratic Right as well. Whether they can be successful in this election and/or recover for 2014/2016 depends on whether the Chamber

This is just part of the Republican Party's unconscious effort to self-destruct.

I'm not sure it's unconscious. I think they may be running a longer game. When McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, I couldn't help wondering if he was deliberately throwing the 2008 election to Obama. Perhaps he saw the biggest economic shitstorm since the Depression approaching, and knew that it would be blamed on whoever was in office.

If the GOP actually nominates Santorum, this will no longer be an unlikely-sounding conspiracy theory, but an irrefutable fact. It will mean that the Republicans are absolutely terrified of something that they're reasonably certain will happen in the next four years, and that they don't want anyone from their party in the Oval Office when it does.

I'm not going to vote for Obama again, either way, but I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.

If you are rabidly pro-christian in Santorum's fundamentalist manner and share his anti-intellectualism, you are probably not a registered Democrat.... But what do I know, I am not from the US, I just watch and shake my head.

No what is unreasonable is that he slammed Obama for being "a snob" for advocating the exact same position as himself:

“President Obama said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob! There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.”

The problem is that President has not advocated that everyone should go to college. What the President said to Congress in 2009:

“And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training.This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country — and this country needs and values the talents of every American.”

That and his position on JFK's address shows that Santorum is man who can't bother to listen past part of a sentence and has made his mind about what was said rather than understanding details.

Ah, but that falls victim to a standard political trick - robo calling people pretending to be the other guy's campaign, ideally doing something outrageous. For instance, Dick Dodge's opponent might do a robo call with a script like:"This is Ruby calling on behalf of Dick Dodge for Congress. I wanted to let you know that if Dick wins, I and my hot friends will be at his victory celebration to help all gentlemen celebrate properly!"

Or another popular one:"This is Mike calling on behalf of Dick Dodge for Cong

I disagree. While Santorum doesn't stand a chance against Obama and Romney looks better than Santorum, Romney's got zero connection with middle America. Obama can rip right through that hole to an easy win. Santorum can talk to Americans, but America is not yet ready for a fascist/fundamentalist. Plus, he's genuinely stupid.

I think the act of reaching out the Democrats in and of itself is a non-issue.If the message was "hey, I'm wanting to reach out to you because..." it'd be one thing. A "vote for me" message.However, the message of the call is "Let's send Mitt Romney a MESSAGE!" A "vote against him" message.

IMHO, this is not quite the scandal everyone seems to be whipping it up to be, it's just "in your face" negative campaigning.Can we talk about what candidates would do about Syria, now? Or maybe African genocide? How about finance reform? Hungry for real issues.

I didn't need to read beyond "robocall" to know that there was something very seriously wrong with this candidate. Now the R's have shown they have no worthy horse in the race. And we already know the D's are going to have no race at all.

Since he says that half of the euthanisias in my country are against the will of the person dying, I'd like him to come over here, so we can add him to his own statistic.
It seems he's going to be worse than Bush jr. WW-III anyone?

Since he says that half of the euthanisias in my country are against the will of the person dying, I'd like him to come over here, so we can add him to his own statistic. It seems he's going to be worse than Bush jr. WW-III anyone?
Fun fact, which American President has killed more Muslims via drone strike then GWB? Barack Obama.

No matter who is in the White House, there's a very good chance WWIII will be started on his watch. There's not one plausible candidate, D or R who doesn't have warmongering with Iran as a major part of their foreign policy platform.

If anything, Obama is a bigger threat to world peace than Santorum. The cult of personality behind him has made most voters oblivious to the fact that he has doubled down on all the worst offenses of the Bush administration. Obama could ask for any power whatsoever, and the so-called "moderates" would hand it over to him just because he's "not Bush".

I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't see an Obama reelection shortly followed by a propaganda blitz extremely similar to what we saw in the lead up to Iraq. And he'll get away with it, because people are more concerned about their team winning, than not being hypocrits.

Of course, he hasn't actually started any wars on his watch, unlike, say... every other US President going back to Carter. (No, a handful of drone strikes in Libya and Somalia don't count.) He did end the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan. He got Bin Laden with a minimal incursion that didn't become a full-blown invasion.

He's talking tough on Iran, but is showing no signs of actually planning for a military operation there. The budget cuts to the military show that.

I think if a drone struck your home, you might have a different opinion on whether that's an act of war. Although, Libya would be a rather minor transgression, if he hadn't violated the War Powers Act by staying there past the deadline.

He did end the war in Iraq and is ending the war in Afghanistan.

Yeah, he ended the Iraq War on the exact date Bush set, and was trying to stay longer. If you're happy that the Iraq war is over, you can thank the Iraqis for kicking us out. Obama had nothing to do with it.

I'll believe that Obama is ending the Afghanistan war when the Afghanistan war actually ends. He could have left when he killed OBL. I don't know what he's waiting for, but it's unlikely it will ever come. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Cut and run at the first opportunity is the only reasonable option.

Yes, BHO killed OBL, but he's also killed american citizens. Even juveniles. I'm far more frightened of living in an America where the president can have citizens assassinated with no oversight or detained without habeas corpus than I am of living in the same world as OBL.

All of the euthanasias in the US are against the will of the person dying, we just use the euphemism "death penalty". I'm constantly amazed at how the side that's "Pro-Life" is so intent on killing adults.

Why would Santorum want to engage Democrats in the Republican primary. He's the fringe right wing candidate. Romney is nigh indistinguishable from the Democratic incumbant. If a Democrat shows up at the Republican primary, the odds are very good that he'll vote Romney.

The only way I can see a Democrat voting for Santorum in the primary is to help Obama win in the general election. Is Santorum banking on his own unelectability to win the primary? Or is that reading too much into this?

The only way I can see a Democrat voting for Santorum in the primary is to help Obama win in the general election. Is Santorum banking on his own unelectability to win the primary?

Exactly. Unelectability in MI If you're not going to get the electoral votes from MI anyway, none of those people matter in any way except that they can be used to get your nomination, then you can win using other states. Its kind of a big middle finger from S to the state of MI. Which could lead Ds to vote for R anyway just to spite S.

Either that or S knew that robocalls are a dirty trick so tried to make it look like R was paying for them to frame S, but failed, R has proof, so S was ordered by his bo

Because Romney was pretty vocal about being against the auto bailout while being *for* the corporate bailouts. Santorum might have even had the same positions, but Romney is the one fighting against the "Clueless, privileged aristocrat" stereotype. A quick poll I read this morning gave Santorum a 47-10 lead among Democrats in Michigan. It's pretty settled strategy that you do what you have to to get the nomination, then worry about tacking to the center for the general election.

The irony is that Santorum doesn't seem to think that this may be a consequence of his actions. I don't know the former Senator that well but the more I learn, the more it seems he represenst the Republican ideal of ultra-religious, anti-intellectual conservative. Just look up his recent stance one JFK, Obama's higher education plan, and women in combat and it signals that he can't be bothered with details about a subject.

If that strategy backfires it would be illegal to pray to Cthulhu before the year is out.

Pope Santorum of the newly established Church of America would outlaw all false gods- and any believe other than anything identical to what he believes.

The scary thing is- under Santorums view of the government- the current foremost official on American religion is Obama. Think about it- if there is no seperation of church and state- Obama is currently the head executive official for American religion- technically the prez doesn't write laws- but he gets to sign laws based on his own personal religious view.

What do people think of that?

The people who should be most afraid of the wearing down on seperation of church and state should be the religious.

No matter your personal political opinions, this is seriously playing with fire. The Democrats engaged in this same kind of meddling during the Republican primary of 1980 to ensure the weaker extremist Regan got nominated. A large amount of what has happened to the USA in the intervening 30 years (good and bad) can be blamed on that collosal miscalculation.

Santorum is thinking of himself. Not the Republican party. Or the US in general. He's got this megalomaniacal mindset that says he's the only one that can run this country. But then that's true of most politicians.

You would think that the sane candidate would be using his parties' primary to sound out his electability in the general election. But instead, all of them are playing to their parties' median, forgetting that they represent about half of the electorate. Not good team players IMO.

As a liberal, if it came down to it, I'd prefer to see Santorum in the White House over Romney.

Romney has already announced his plans to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and then slash income taxes by an additional 20%, and eliminate estate taxes. He says he plans to do so without cutting Social Security, Medicare, or the military. That's $300B in cuts that will be heaped pretty much entirely on the poor and working class, right as we're recovering from the last disaster that his kind caused. And the Re

Personally I think they should do away with "special rights" of parties, etc.

There is nothing in our constitution that creates- or gives special rights to political parties. There is nothing about our brand of democracy that benefits from having parties. George Washington actually called them a bad idea and thought the US should stay away from them.

The government by including party affiliation on ballots- and helping organise- and give public spaces to primaries are interfering with fair elections- it gives an unfair advantage to the two largest parties and does not give a level playing field.

Being a two-party system the majority of the population are pressured into voting for one of two ideologies. "an independant or a third-party can't win" is a common belief... certainly it is made harder by states allowing people to vote "straight-party ticket". This makes it harder for independants or third parties to be elected.

Sadly, it's that opinion (which I broadly share) against math, and math is going to win. If you want to get rid of the two party system, you have to make a structural change. Something like partisan voting for the House, or a preferential system or some such. But as long as we are first past the post, only a two party system is stable.

UK system is fundamentally, structurally different than US. It is parliamentary, where ours is not. It has far more localized elections than in the US generally. And so forth. So how does that differ from my point that if you want to get rid of the two party system in the US, you have to change the voting or the underlying structure? I believe that, in other words, you've demonstrated my point while voicing it as a contradiction.

There is nothing in our constitution that creates- or gives special rights to political parties.

I go farther. If anything, membership in a political party is a hobby outside the scope of your job. Anything and everything you do for the benefit of your hobby playmates (your party) is essentially stealing from your employer (the people). Congressfolk often forget that they represent the interests of everyone in their state or district, not just everyone in the winning party, not even just the voters or ci

Republicans in Michigan crossed party lines to give Jesse Jackson the win back in 1998, and also for the Gubernatorial primaries to vote for Geoffrey Fieger in 1998. Democrats in Detroit [freep.com] were urging their voters to turn out for Ron Paul today, which is what Daily Kos should have supported too if they had half a brain. Ron Paul pulling off an upset in Michigan would have really threw the GOP primaries. A Rick Santorum victory, not so much.

In case you still haven't noticed: Rick Santorum has proven to be more electable than Ron Paul, in the Republican party. Daily Kos has enough of a brain to realize this, and know it would be like pissing in the wind.

In case you still haven't noticed: Rick Santorum has proven to be more electable than Ron Paul, in the Republican party. Daily Kos has enough of a brain to realize this, and know it would be like pissing in the wind.

I'm not surprised that both Santorum and Romney would stoop to just about anything that they think might help them win; but I'm honestly baffled by this one: What color is the sky in the universe where Santorum, running on the theocracy platform, is hoping that he will achieve any useful effects by mobilizing democrats? Romney is a deeply unlikable plutocrat with vaguely reptilian characteristics; but he managed(through a set of policies he now totally doesn't endorse when he is on the national stage) to go

Let us assume that someone in Santorum's campaign has a braincell to spare. Now, the first and foremost goal has to be to get Romney out of the picture - winning the actual elections comes later and can maybe be fixed by a call to Diebold, let's see. Since any sane person would assume that Santorum is unelectable by large, Democrat leaning voters might actually endorse Santorum for the Republican race, since it diminishes the chance of a Republican victory in the presidential election.

I'd like to know how primary elections got co-opted by political parties as a means of selecting their party's candidate for the general election. If they want to use the public voting system for party needs, they should pay for it or stage their own party-specific election and not hold a primary at all.

In the best of all possible worlds, there wouldn't be ANY primary elections. There would be a single election with ranked preference voting and everybody gets three to choose their first, second and third

Well, you have to figure in that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have voted the same way quite a few times, and Dennis Kucinich is probably has one of the most solid liberal voting records of anyone in Congress. Of course, we also seem to live in an era where having an isolationist foreign policy, voting to reduce spending, wanting to shrink the government, and respecting the Constitution are good ways to get thrown out of the Republican party.

I got one a couple of days ago and listened to end in the vain hope there would be an unsubscribe. The girl who made the recording was listing famous republicans who endorsed him. It was obvious at one point that she got to people she did not know as she stuggled to read some of the names.

The L's have been about letting anyone do anything to screw anyone any which way they want, for decades. I figured that out in the first L party (and last) L part meeting I attended. The only difference between the L's and the R's is that the R's want to limit this ability to screw anyone any which way they want to just the rich (via corporations).

That's what the conservative party of Canada is alleged to have done in over 30 ridings (districts) during the last Canadian federal election.

Yup, and in my riding too. We may have by-elections, stay tuned.
It really pissed me off when the Conservatives got a majority. Among other things they're trying to fuck up the internet and expand the prison population.